Nature of Political Reforms in Japan

Looking back in the history of Japan, the largest and most known reform most would say is during the era of the Meiji Restoration. The highlights of this were the abolishment of the feudal system, the emperor's rise in power and the establishment of Japan's first constitution. It is like flipping a coin, an absolute change in the system. Although examining both minor and major historical reforms that have happened in Japan will only be enough to explain the characteristics of Japanese policies: consistent, dynamic and long-term. How about the status of current on-going and planned reforms most especially political ones? Will the modern reforms be as credible as their predecessors?

At present, political reforms lies in the hands of the ruling party, the LDP. Knowing the fact that the LDP is considered more as a coalition of barbarians rather than a coherent party due to the struggles among factions that composes it, LDP Prime Ministers had difficulties reaching a consensus with their proposed reforms. Analyzing the Prime Ministers that have ruled over like Koizumi, Abe, Fukuda, all have pursued such reforms of their own concerns. Nevertheless, including the current PM Taro Aso, they all shared the interest in pursuing fiscal reforms although in different ways. For instance, Koizumi Koizumi pushed for new ways to revitalise the moribund economy, aiming to act against bad debts with commercial banks & privatize the postal savings system.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junichiro_Koizumi). While Taro Aso, in contrast with Koizumi's fiscal reform, dumped the former policy and instead adopted a basic policy with the purpose of forming the 2009 fiscal budget and drafting stimulus packages . 

Turning our interests  in what I call unpopular political reforms, during Shinzo Abe's term as PM, he focused on a reform with the emphasis on the culture, tradition and long history of Japan.  He wants to strenghten ties with the US by supporting its coalition warships which the people saw as a violation of the pacifist constitution. Not only did it led to his unpopularity in the polls, a dispute within the party made it difficult for Abe to implement his reform which later became the main reason for his resignation. Japanese people would want safety net policies rather than policies promoting culture and stuff.  Although former PM Fukuda avoided committing the mistakes of Shinzo Abe, he also ended his term not so long after he was elected as PM because he sees himself as an impediment in the rightful reforms which prioritizes the people's lives. The abrupt resignation of Prime Ministers like Abe and Fukuda caused political uncertainties. This calls for more extensive fiscal reforms to avoid political vacuum which will affect Japanese economy in a worst possible way. 

Looking at the situation of Japan right now, I myself forsee the possibility of Taro Aso's resignation sooner than what is expected by other people. If  this happens, Ichiro Ozawa would possibly be the next candidate for Prime Minister as what I am informed of. According to his book "A Blueprint for a New Japan", he viewed reforms(policies) as not the only problem. For him, the problem is rooted with credibility issue, lack of leadership.  And that the main cause of lack of leadership is the extreme diffusion of power. The results of this scenerio is evident during Shinzo Abe's term as Prime Minister. A lack of credibility and an unorganized distribution of power turned his political reforms hostile towards the people and to his own party.  

It is important that Prime Ministers should consider reforms strengthening not only domestic and international ties but more emphasis should given to those reforms involving the people's lives. These reforms must also consolidate democratic power so that responsibility and power would be evenly distributed. 

LDP's Defiance of Democratic Process

Looking back at history, the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan was never in existence until the year 1955 wherein two seperate parties during the prewar period of Japan decided to merge with each other, the Liberal Party and Democratic Party of Japan. Since then, the LDP held the most seats in the upper house of the Diet which is the House of Representatives with the exception during the early 1990s although this had a very minor impact and LDP was able to easily gain back in momentum. According to Professor Ethan Scheiner, LDP is facing the dilemma of being the most hated political party in Japan and that they continue to lose public support overtime. Correct me if I am wrong but I think the public's anger against LDP came about due to the issues surrounding them especially graft and corruption. Nevertheless, no credible challenger emerged up until now to somehow weaken the governing power of the LDP and that . It sounds kind of ironic isn't it? Knowing the fact that democracy is equated to what I call "popular demand" and looking at a higher level, a democratic system will mean a high possibility of succession in governing power since people's preferences change overtime. However, that is not the case with the LDP. That is why Japan has one of the uncommon democracies due to the one-party dominance of the LDP. 

Professor Scheiner emphasized on three arguments which can be attributed to the LDP's longevity. Despite the party's unpopularity, it miraculously served Japan at its best.  The first is due to the "institution" long established by the LDP since the day it was founded. Japan achieved a successful economy through the years of LDP's rule. Who would not want among the Japanese people a better economy, or more appropriately a better standard of living? It has also valued Japanese culture through the appeals it makes to the people. This can be seen in the campaign periods wherein candidates themselves go to different places perseveringly repeating their names so as to inform everyone about his candidacy, shaking the hands of bystandards while handing them pamphlets as well but most importantly stating their political platforms. Maybe the fact how Japanese candidates conduct their campaigns so differently compared here in the Philippines makes them appear to me more sincere in what they are doing. A candidate campaigning mostly all by himself is not an easy task to do. Amazingly, the  policies the LDP implements also seems to favor elites and as well normal Japanese people. 

The second is that the majority of the public does not support reform. Reform in a way that they are afraid to risk the chances of improving Japan by supporting other political parties. They have the notion "The LDP is serving its purpose well in all aspects promoting anything that is Japanese, why should we consider other alternatives (parties)"? It all boils down to the fact the public is contented with what the current system offers. 

The third has something to do with the composition of the parties, the candidates. The speaker mentioned in the video that the new electoral system whereby the voters are given two ballots, one for the party and another for an individual candidate. This situation highlights the opposing parties failure to overthrow the LDP. The scenerio given was when in terms of party votes, the LDP is on the loosing end since the leading opposition party is doing much better during the year 2003. As I mentioned above, they are the most disliked party among all others. But in terms of individual candidacy votes, the LDP candidates dramatically exceed those of oppositional candidates. Why is that so? Opposition parties are having a hard time finding good candidates while compared to the LDP wherein most candidates are incumbents. The term "quality" was introduced here which was defined as a candidate's level of experience in politics and his ability to do well on it.  The LDP's possession of quality candidates is considered an advantage since as I mentioned most candidates are former local heads of subnational level which have already done something beneficial to the public like projects and services. Another thing about LDP candidates are their influence in the government. The pipeline system as what the people have coined it in which the candidates get support from the government mostly the financial kind of support in order to answer the needs and requests of the localities. 

In liue with what I have written above, I cannot help but to speak my mind on the third argument since I am trying to understand how is it possible to hate the party while liking the people behind it. In other words, it is difficult for me to isolate the body and its parts. It is like saying I hate Nihonggo but I like studying Kanji. Shouldn't the parts reflect the whole condition of the body? Shouldn't the scenario be since the LDP is composed of good quality candidates, then LDP as whole is a good political party?

Rashomon & Japanese Politics Metaphorically Compatible?

First thing's first, it would be best if I were to introduce a little background of these two concepts I am pondering on. A 1950's Japanese film entitled Rashomon directed by Akira Kurosawa which was based on Ryunosuke Akutagawa's short story In a Grove. The film simply revolves on a story of a crime (rape and murder) committed with a bunch of witnesses (including the suspect himself) giving testimonies incosistently on what had happened in the scene of the action. The other is more of a broad concept which some people would think has nothing to do with the former, Japanese Politics. Yes! You heard me right... Japanese Politics. Well, one might say that rape and murder does happen in politics in some countries but definitely I have not heard of any issues regarding those in Japanese Politics. But come to think of it after watching the film, there is this question that keeps on bugging me; who is telling the truth among those witnesses? Now that is something I could relate to Japanese Politics, though not necessarily the truth but its concept!

Truth, a word that can be defined in many ways. Another word that I want to introduce that would compliment and help in understanding it is perspective or views whatever you want to call it for the reason that I want to define truth in connection with what I have mentioned above. Truth depends on the perspective or views of individuals in a certain event. Like what happened in the film, no objective truth really came out. Objective in a sense that no actual facts of what had happened really appeared. It also means that although truth differs on how people see it they are in fact, plausible.

Okay enough with the "Rashomon" truth. So what does it got to do with Japanese Politics? Metaphorically speaking, it is the different ways on how we look and understand Japanese Politics. I have stumbled upon a review of the book entitled The Postwar Japanese System by William K. Tabb in which it says that the metaphor of Rashomon is applicable in understanding the politics, history and culture of Japan. I tried to compare and somehow integrate it with the books entitled Japanese Political History Since the Meiji Renovation by Richard Sims; Structure and Policy in Japan and United States by Peter F. Cowhey, Mathew Daniel; Japanese Political Culture by Takeshi Ishida; and Institutions, Incentives and Electoral Participation in Japan by Yusaku Horiuchi. So I came up with a conclusion that maybe Japanese Politics can be understood in the perspective of Japan's history, culture and even through comparison with other politics like that one of United States. Though each perspective would definitely result to a different understanding of Japanese politics, the point is they arrive with actual facts.

On the other side, its concept can also be applicable on the side of the politicians and bureaucrats themselves. Their actions and the arguments they give with regards to state matters for instance. In the case of the Liberal Democratic Party and Democratic Party of Japan; their perspectives manifested in their arguments with regards to governance of the country and the status quo differ with each other although both are indeed plausible or acceptable. Even though they view things in a different way, their aim still coincide in one point which is the development of Japan.

So it is important not to let our ways of seeing things be narrowed down for it will definitely hinder us from seeing larger realities.





P.S : Nosebleed! Am I coherent? >_<

Japan, an Incomplete Puzzle?

Sooo JAPANice! Really?!

"Small but terrible. Definitely a force to be reckoned with."

Those are the first few words that comes into my mind when talking about Japan. A simple explanation yet packs a lot of meaning. Most, if not all of us, have this view of Japan as a great, strongly developed country with great people living within its borders. Unimaginable and humongous infrastructures anywhere you look , strong economy and citizens culturally living a life of respect, discipline and honor. In fact, according to J.A.A. Stockwin in his book entitled Governing Japan, people say Japan generally speaking, is sui generis or unique in layman's term. For foreigners specifically Westerners, this "uniqueness" creates the impression that it is impossible to understand the aspects (culture, economy, history, politics, etc) of Japan with the use of Western style of analysis in which of course I do not believe. Instead, I like how Mr. Teehankee defined this uniquely "unique" characteristic of Japan. According to him, it is based not only on what is mentioned above (infrastructures, culture, people) but it is the country's ability to adapt something from other foreign powers and turn it to something theirs in such a way that it will look like they are the initiators of it. It seems unbelievable and unexplainable but they have proven it is possible. Yes, Japan is unique but just to some extent though it is convincing enough that this broad characteristic makes the country an intriguing subject to study. Despite what people say, Japan as a whole is not perfect. It is like other countries having their own flaws and vulnerable in making mistakes (not to mention the ongoing recession).

Giving focus to the political framework, isn't it shocking to know that from nothing, Japan rose to be one of the strong and prosperous country in the world? What kind of political system they have been employing for the past decade up to now that contributed to their success? In connection with what I have said above, even political scientists which are considered specialists in the field of politics are unable to completely grasp and comprehend the political system of Japan even its political system is not really so different from others. What more for non political scientists like us? What ways can we employ to better understand its politics?

"Comparative Politics" a Better Means of Understanding Japan's Politics?

Since the issue here is revolving on politics, the more specific term of comparison would be helpful which is Comparative Politics. According to Todd Landman, author of the book entitled Issues and Methods in Comparative Politics, comparative politics can be defined as a systematic study of political systems of different countries which aims to provide better understanding of political phenomena and come up with possible predictions which can aid in decision making (judgments) in the future. To make it simple, it acts as a safety net and a learning tool for the government. Through comparative politics, countries are able to identify their strengths and weaknesses. Comparison can also result to new ideas and information which may be of great help in improving the system. For instance, maybe we could also find out how the LDP successfully ruled the government for many years through comparative politics. I really think that comparing Japan's politics with other political systems would give it a clearer identity because as mentioned, its political system is no different from the others. Definitely Japan is worth comparing with other countries because it is a good model of a strong country, at the same time some of its aspects has still much to improve on like politics.

"A part of Japan is still a mystery which is yet to be unraveled."